Gay Rights Weekend


Impatient and discouraged by what they see as a certain detachment by President Obama on their issues, gay rights supporters took to the streets of the capital on Sunday in the largest demonstration for gay rights here in nearly a decade.

[. . . ] The rally on Sunday and a black tie gala on Saturday here hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights advocacy group, made for a glaring dichotomy. President Obama, who spoke at the dinner, had the crowd on its feet as he reiterated his pledge to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and declared that his commitment to gay rights was “unwavering.” But at the rally, demonstrators gave the president’s speech low marks for lacking any new substance and failing to acknowledge several major issues confronting the gay movement. In the words of Billie Myers, a musician who spoke to an eager crowd of tens of thousands that gathered on the West Lawn of the Capitol Sunday, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t like your speech.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Not everyone is ready to give aspirational awards to President Obama it seems.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    True (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    apparently there's a lot of people who would rather see action instead of another speech. Speeches are fine (though I think Obama really overdoes it in this area) but unless they are backed up by actions they are worthless.

    You have to watch what Obama does not what he says. We have many examples of him saying one thing and doing another to trust what he says.

    Bingo (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by kempis on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    And eventually, Obama is going to have serious, broad credibility problem--not just with the gay community.

    His problem with us (gay folk) began with Donnie McClurkin. Having the gay-bashing, self-hating, screwed up McClurkin headline his gospel tour was a real slap in the face.

    Then Obama made some nice speeches, admonishing the black community that they needed to be more accepting of their gay brothers and sisters, etc.

    Then he taps Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

    Then he assures us that he is a "fierce advocate" for gay equality.

    Then his DOJ defends DOMA with gratuitously homophobic language.

    And we assured again that he really does want to end DOMA and DADT.

    And on and on it goes. So, no, I'm not at all interested in what he says. That applies not just to gay civil rights but also to everything.

    After all, this is the guy who said that he was going to battle to strip telecomm immunity out of the FISA bill--and six months later he voted to keep it.

    He has made it clear that he supports the public option. He has also made it clear that he is open to alternatives. In short, he has made it clear that he wants ANY kind of bill to pass that can be loosely called health care reform, and he's covering all bases--as he does with everything--so that he can claim that it turned out exactly as he had hoped, thanks to his skillful politicking.


    Let me tell you (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:21:01 PM EST
    Obama has no credibility with straight people like myself either, and a lot of it began when he ki$$ed the a$$ of that creep, Donnie McClurkin. Add to that his deceitfulness about FISA and you end up with a true liberal base that was disgusted as soon as this administration rode in last January. The debacle of fraudulent leadership over health care is but another betrayal in what, I'm certain, will prove to be four years of many such betrayals.

    Hypocrisy and selling out the base is a sure-fire way to lose future elections, and that includes the upcoming congressional elections. He'll have no one but himself to blame.


    IIRC, McClurkin (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:00:33 AM EST
    was a great example of Obama reaching out to the (intolerant) religious folks, which he did again and again and again, even if it meant dissing more tolerant types.

    That's what rankles me more than anything - the message that it's okay to embrace intolerance for the sake of political rewards.  


    I certainly (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    understand why you feel the way you do. IMO, no one group has been jerked around by Obama than the gay community. I read somewhere that McCain actually did better with gays than Kerry did in 2004. Now, I dont know if that's true but it would say something if it is.

    Thank god for that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    BTW, I am mostly impressed with the coverage of all of this. The activists are being taken seriously.

    Not just the new generation (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:30:20 PM EST
    Why, why, why must political rifts, especially on the eft, always be framed as generational wars?
    Unlike previous marches promoting gay civil rights, the rally was primarily the undertaking of a new generation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocates who have grown disillusioned with the movement's established leadership.


    Known as Stonewall 2.0 or the Prop. 8 Generation - a reference to the galvanizing effect the repeal of California's same-sex marriage law had on many young people - this group of 20-and-30-something activists are at odds with gay advocates who are urging patience as Mr. Obama grapples with more pressing pieces of his domestic agenda like health care reform and the economic recovery.

    "I think this march represents the passing of the torch," said Corey Johnson, 27, a protester and blogger for the gay lifestyle website Towleroad.com. "The points of power are no longer in the halls of Washington or large metropolitan areas. It's decentralized now. You have young activists and gay people from all walks of life converging on Washington not because a national organization told them to, but because they feel the time is now."


    I see this more as a break between the establishment gays who are "nice" and "non-confrontational" , and an activist LGBT community that is more interested in results than it is in cocktail parties. It reminds me so much of the tension and dismay many establishment gays felt with Act-Up in the '80s.

    Those brackets above (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    set off a quote from the NY Times article. Not surre what i did wrong.

    I read something today - (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    that I think is at the heart of Obama's failure to act:

    But Obama is also clearly mindful of the politics of the combustible issue. Opposition remains strong in much of the country to extending rights to gays, especially where marriage is concerned.

    House Democrats introduced a bill last month that would repeal the marriage act, but polls consistently show that opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage outnumber supporters. Twenty-nine states have banned same-sex marriage.

    And then there was this heartbreaking story:

    I Didn't Tell. It Didn't Matter.


    But the abuse wasn't invisible to everyone. In 2005, roughly six months into my time with that unit, a new sailor in our group was taken aback when I was left tied up in a dog kennel. She reported the incident and, from what I understand, this prompted an internal investigation into hazing in my unit. Even then, the abuse continued, and I still couldn't bring myself to talk about it. It took 90 minutes and the threat of a subpoena to get me to testify.

    The Navy confirmed 93 incidents of misconduct, including hazing, abuse, physical assault, solicitation of prostitutes and misuse of government property and funds, but the case was closed. After receiving a letter of caution, the military's version of a slap on the wrist, my chief was eventually promoted in rank and position.

    In the course of that investigation, the Navy decided to charge my best friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a 27-year-old Sailor of the Year and second in command of my unit, for failing to put an end to my chief's tyranny. The idea that she could have stopped the abuse is, to me, unfair and unreasonable. The Navy itself failed to stop him.

    Val, as I called her, was set to return home when she was told of the charges and that she wouldn't be leaving Bahrain as planned. She was afraid that she would never see the United States again. My mentor ended up taking her life.

    Being a leader sometimes requires one to make decisions that will not please everyone.  Sometimes it requires one to be an example, to have enough courage to do the right thing and face up to the opposition with conviction and passion.

    Talk is cheap, and getting cheaper and more devoid of meaning as time goes by.

    I don't believe Obama has the courage, because I don't think he has the convictions; I think he's willing to take tenative and tiny steps that won't make too many people mad, but I don't think, when all is said and done, he's going to step up as long as he sees more political peril than reward.  

    I wonder sometimes if he ever thinks about where the rights of women and people of color would be if those who blazed the trail and took political risk had been as wishy-washy as he is showing himself to be.

    I just don't understand why he does not see that continuing these discriminatory policies damages all of us, and diminishes our stature as a people.

    False Choices, IMO (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by BDB on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:18:45 AM EST
    As Glenn Greenwald documents today, most Americans support civil unions and repealing DADT.  All the repeal of DOMA would do is let states decide and recognize civil unions or gay marriages for federal benefits.  It wouldn't give any gay the right to marry.  If the greatest progressive communicator EVAH can't explain that to a population that already supports civil unions and repealing DADT, then perhaps the problem is not, in fact, with the American people.

    I'm so sick of Obama blaming the American people for his weaknesses.  He did it wrongly on healthcare and he's doing it again here.  A solid majority of the people want more change than he's wiling to deliver.


    As commander in chief (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    the President can change DADT by executive order; it's just a military qualifications-and-discharge policy, which is not compelled by statute.  The federal "Defense of Marriage Act" is something else, unfortunately. To change that pernicious legacy of the Clinton administration, the administration has to push the congressional leadership to act to repeal the statute. He could, of course, also go farther and have the Civil Rights Division of the Dept of Justice support marriage equality, while in the meanwhile at least softpedaling any in-court defense of DOMA when it is challenged.  Assuming Obama is not a flat out liar and hypocrite, only political calculation explains why he has so far done otherwise.

    Sadly, that's a tough assumption to make. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Lysis on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:38:00 AM EST
    And personally, I'd kill for President Clinton's commitment to these issues to even be approached by President Obama. What Clinton pushed for in the early-mid 90's was far more progressive and forward-thinking than Obama's push relative to his own time period.

    Then again, Clinton was willing to shut down the federal government rather than make unacceptable compromises to the opposing party in control of congress. Obama bafflingly wants the opposing party's approval and support, despite the fact that they're in the minority.



    Actually, I was wrong (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    the DADT policy is in fact enshrined in a statute, 10 U.S.C. sec 654.  While the President could, in effect, disable the policy by, for example, withdrawing the implementing regulations, this would be a basically Bush-like tactic -- that is, essentially, abusing Presidential power and bypassing Congress.  The only "straightforward" way (if I can use that term in this context) would be to repeal or defund section 654, either of which would require Congressional action.  

    The Real Test Will Be (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:34:18 PM EST
    whether they sit home and refuse to donate.  If they don't, nobody is going to care.  If they do, then they may well get some action.

    A friend of mine recently said that she was through with any politician that didn't support gay marriage.  No support, no money and no vote.  She was tired of being lied to and used.  I can't say as I blame her.

    Perhaps, eleven dimensional chess is in (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 11:14:52 PM EST
    play for President Obama's dealings with that pesky gay issue.  However, as one who admittedly struggles with checkers, it does seem to me that fulsome speeches followed by empty moves only disaffects administration supporters and, none-the-less, antagonizes its opponents. Indeed, the difference between proclaiming to be a fierce advocate and being a fierce advocate would be marginal. An executive order to suspend DADT, for example, while charging the Congress to pass legislation for repeal would not register much differently in opponents than in stating that it will be repealed sometime, somehow.  Moreover, the timing would be better sooner than later, what with the immediacy of ongoing wars and demonstration of  uneventful experience.  But, I know, patience is a virtue,  the president has a full plate, he has only been in office nine months, and he has, after all, escalated his efforts from a WH cocktail party to a fine speech on national TV.

    New rules for 11 Dimensional Chess (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:11:42 AM EST
    When you're President, you can only play on 1 level at a time.

    Has to come from top (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:51:51 AM EST
    I disagree with Obama'a opinion that gay rights have to be achieved from the bottom up. 60% of the states have taken action to ban gay marriage. If gay marriage couldn't pass in California what are the chances of gays having equality in Alabama?

    If this same strategy had been adopted in dealing with integration, Obama wouldn't be sitting in the WH today.

    Gay rights won't be achieved without a federal mandate. Repealing DADT is a first step. It will bring an end to government approval of discrimination.

    Repealing DADT will also force the government to make decisions on benefits and rights given to military personnel. That could open the door to extending these rights to all federal employees.
    When that happens, states will follow suit in order to assure that government contracts and money continue to flow.

    "Gay Rights Weekend" was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    a 'success' for President Obama.  He was able to more deeply co-op the gay leadership, continuing to keep them at bay by re-iterating promises.  He was able to split away some of the gay community into party celebrants in black tie and street mourners in black sleeve bands.  In the process of dividing and conquering he has undermined both categories--the establishment gays will suffer in future membership and funding and those outside this establishment will be marginalized as impolite and just to naive to know how things work in DC.   Moreover, broader Democratic support may be eroded in fear that following through on the president's promises (of course, at this time) will harm the president's re-election prospects and/or health care agenda, such as it is.  The only winners, are the wingers--they still get to degrade the president for his "unwavering commitment" to gay rights while savoring their homophobia and enjoying  the continued governmental discrimination.

    on Nightly News (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    it seems that the WH isn't concerned about the "internet left fringe" and think need to get out of their jammies . . .

    that outta go over well . . .


    If the link doesn't go to the video, it's the one about Obama's base.

    Man (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    this is one of the most arrogant bunch of people to occupy the WH since....well, since W and the gang.

    Really?!? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Maise7 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:57:07 AM EST
    Wow. I wasn't even an Obama fan until the end. But this sad sad sack of crap coming from the left truly amazes me. Truly.

    We had Bush for 8 years. He lied, he broke the law, he didn't give a damn about ANYONE in this country. Soldiers died. People lost their jobs, their homes, their livelyhood. And when I continue to hear, from the left, that Obama is just another Bush....I get frustrated. It's mind-boggling to hear. It's asinine.



    And what (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:29:10 AM EST
    has Obama done different? Has he passed a HOLC that kept people in their homes? No, he hasnt. Haven't soldiers died on Obama's watch too? Obama has lied tons of times but apparently that's okay with you? Frankly Obama doesnt give a damn about anyone other than himself. That's been patently obvious for quite a while now and the sooner people like you realize it the better we'll all be.

    P.S. I'm not in on "the left" unless you consider people who fall slightly left of center as the "left".


    And Obama has changed what?? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    Remember his online 'ask the President' (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:07:00 AM EST
    Hasn't been back thewre since he got by far the most votes for questions he didn't want to address.

    Ach (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:02:06 PM EST
    That's the conventional wisdom. But here's the danger: there is a confluence between a President being widely recognized as not having accomplished much of anything and members of his base who are saying pretty much the same thing. If that starts the reverberate, the WH has to worry.

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    the WH should be on top of those things right now. They seem to think that they can wait. But hey, IMO they operate from the "they have nowhere to go mindset" but always seem to forget that there's such a thing as sitting home.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    For my own part, I'm never going to be the guy who sits at home. But others will be. And the path of least resistance (my vote, but no more) is a very easy kind of protest for me to live with.

    Why give him your vote? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    You don't have to sit home, but there is generally someone on the ballot that supports you beyond words. This is NY after all. Your vote is what Obama wants. He can get funding. The only reason he would want your dollars is to continue the farce that he was financed by "the people". {gag}

    The "path of least resistance" is good enough for them. And they don't have to lift a finger for you.


    First, I vote in Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    Second, voting for anyone other than the Democrat or the Republican is a wasted vote, equivalent to not voting. Third, for now the Republicans are an unacceptable alternative. The situation will be, as usual, that there is no option that can make things better, but only one option that can make things get not worse.

    Not willing to fight the statu quo? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:56:01 PM EST
    This nation really needs to stop the "no where else to go so I'll 'sheep' it" mentality. We need to expand our party system, especially now when the Dem party is crossing to the right, with the encouragement of the President. A passive vote is all they want from you. The only other option is to push the party back to the left, but that requires a spine on election day . . . otherwise, why bother to push for your rights if you are just going to hand over the passive vote?

    There is no such thing as a wasted vote. It's a choice between statu quo or standing up for what you believe in . . .


    Objectively, you are wrong (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:02:53 PM EST
    There are and will ever be only two parties in America. The electoral system makes this so. That has been obvious for decades, but for anyone who did not see it before, the 2000 election should have settled the question.

    Whatever (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:08:01 PM EST
    let's all just roll over . . . and get nowhere.

    You get nowhere (none / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    by starting at the top. Take a bottom up approach, build the credibility of your third party alternative through local and state elections first and you may be able to get somewhere. Otherwise the third party "alternative" will always be the frivolous alternative for most voters.

    I didn't say start at the top (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    but we are talking about "the top". Why sit back passively-wait-and-see and still give the one thing he wants, votes? Spend energy elsewhere. On those that will replace these freakin' conservatives he's so busy boot licking, and not support him. He's not going to do sh*t until he starts losing his voter base.

    Sorry, I'm in a p*ssy mood when it comes to this BS. I'm just so f*cking sick of his attitude of pretty speeches followed by a slap in the face. I think he's shown enough of his colors to really question supporting him on a hope and a dream. Passive votes are a sign of "approval" or better yet, defeat.

    Ok, back to the kitchen goes me :)


    Populist Party platform (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lambert on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    1892. A lot of this came true in years to come. If you want to play a truly long game, maybe a third party is the way to go.

    Well, that's a fair point Lambert (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    Truly successful 3rd parties in America take two paths: they are either coopted by by one of the major parties or the replace one of the major parties. And really, it's a distinction without a difference. In the meantime, they can split the vote an cause damage (Woodrow Wilson was a disaster for blacks, for example).

    In any case, I have fairly selfish motives:I care about the future, but my goal, like most everyone else's, is to make the world better for me. And one of the only ways to do that in this political system is to create your own "NOW, NOW, NOW" moment.


    But the damage is done either way (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:32:04 PM EST
    As it stands now, you either let the Democrats hand your money over and cave on your rights over several years or let the GOP do it immediately.  Because the last 30 years have shown that electing Democrats doesn't actually stop, much less reverse, the nation's slide to the right.  In many ways, Barack Obama is to Richard Nixon's right on domestic policies.  

    We need to find some way to shake this dynamic where our only choice is the speed at which we lose.


    See under health care (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:03:15 AM EST
    Take Grayson's comment:

    1. The Republican plan is not "die quickly, but die profitably."

    2. The Democratic plan is "don't get sick 'til 2013." (And even then we'll take a decade to work it out.)

    Not "the same." But not different in a way that makes a hell of a lot of difference -- to "me," as you say, AndGarden.

    Yes, But That's Still a Narrow View (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by BDB on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:29:23 PM EST
    The two parties have at various points in history have changed.  We don't have the Whigs anymore.  But more than changing literally, they also change for what they stand for.   The Democrats, in particular, have been influenced by third party candidacies.  Does Bill Clinton go all deficit hawk if not for Ross Perot?  Does FDR go all New Deal if not for the Progressive Party?

    You can accept that there will always be two parties.  You can even believe they will always be called Democrats and Republicans.  But that doesn't mean third party movements can't have an effect.  A third party movement that is big enough (say 10% of the vote) to swing an election often gets the other two parties chasing after its supporters by moving towards the third party cause.


    Two Party System (none / 0) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:59:07 AM EST
    I use my vote two ways. One is offensive. I want my party to enact policies that I agree with. I also vote defensively. I want to insure that I'm not putting a governement in place that will act against my interests.

    Obama isn't the leader I wanted. I felt that with the shape the country was in, we needed a much stronger leader.

    I also remembered what the Republican administration had done to this country during the preceeding 8 yrs.

    In a two party system, (which is what this country is based on), voting isn't black and white. No candidate or either party is going to be ideal. In most cases it's the lesser of two evils.

    Since the days of Reagan, the Republican Party has been hijacked by the extreme right and Evangelical's. The beliefs and policies of both groups are completely contrary to mine.

    As much as I would like to see a "real liberal" in the WH, I can still take comfort in the fact that at least I've been able to slow down the Righteous Right's march.

    I don't want to see a government in place that not only tells me what I can do in the privacy of my home, but also who I can do it with.

    I don't want a government that continues to redistribute the wealth of the country into the hands of less than 5% of the population.

    There still are major differences in the party's philosophies. It's getting grayer, I admit. But they do exist.


    Multi Party Choices (none / 0) (#24)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    are OK in Parliamentary forms of democracy, not so in a Presidential system.

    Also such a thing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:59:33 PM EST
    as not contributing to his campaign. If the early fundraising does not go well, they might sit up and take notice. That is the advantage we lefties have of having an incumbent trying to keep us on board.  Based on that, I will predict the DADT repeal for fall 2011.

    2013 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:09:56 PM EST
    I do believe they have ample funding for 2012. See Wall St, Health Insurance, Big Pharma, etc . . .

    Couple of interesting questions raised there (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:23:09 PM EST
    I guess I was thinking they'd be more likely to repeal DADT as part of the re-election campaign to keep the base on board. But you are probably right - they won't risk it until after re-election.  Which means nothing at all risky will happen after this year, on any issue. Depressing.

    Also, I guess the bragging about small donors is probably a thing of the past.


    I suspect OFA will go by the wayside soon (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:10:10 PM EST
    or be reduced to a laughable size. That will be the end of his "people power". We can't wait until 2013-2015 for things to go into effect, or be dealt with. And do we still want to "hope" he will have political capitol left when he 'gets around to it'?

    I personally don't think he has it in him to deal with DADT before an election . . . if he has any capitol left after 2012, he won't want to burn it until close to the end of his term. Then he may  do some things for "the record".

    Who me, jaded?


    It goes without saying (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    that I am on track to make no contributions.

    Gay are in society but (none / 0) (#11)
    by joze46 on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    First Gay's have to reject anal sex, and address it as the straight community does as perverted or wrong. Bible reference or no reference. This rejection must be on the table if gay's are going to commit to civil society. Simple and forward it is not healthy.  

    Second, there should be nothing called closet gay's, or gays that are married with children, absolutely have to be addressed. There is probably more that I can not think of but just as women take advantage of men, TV's and cross dressers have done the same. Some for good fun, others as elusive, diverse for personal passion so then with this new openness should expect those civil liberties to be addressed with legal initiatives that could rain in chaos or a moral authority that could help prevent spread any unhealthy environment.

    Then it might happen

    Speaking for me only      

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:43:37 PM EST
    I do not understand your post. Is it unlabeled snark? or do you believe all that?

    Gee, I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    you have such a boring sex life.

    Yeah, an*l s*x is one thing... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by lambert on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    but an*l s*x "on the table"? That's really nasty. I mean, at least put down a cloth, or something.

    What kind of s*x people have (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    is none of anyone's business.  Period.

    joze46 (none / 0) (#65)
    by Spamlet on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    unwittingly identifies a major component of homophobia--the insanely hysterical American phobia about all things anal.

    Yes, joze46, you put your finger on it, but I'm not shaking your hand. Who knows where your finger has been?


    Unwittingly? (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    This is either sarcasm or stupidity. I mean, god knows that straight people NEVER engage in sex acts for non-procreative purposes!

    Sorry to disappoint, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Spamlet on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    but it was neither sarcasm nor stupidity, and you're not the only queer in the room.

    Maybe you've forgotten your Deleuze and Guattari, or maybe you've never read them. "Family, Capitalism, Anus" is a good introduction.

    There is no repression more effective than the act of repression that has itself been repressed, and that's all I was alluding to in using the term "unwitting" ("not knowing," "unaware," per definition 1 in Webster's 11th Collegiate).


    Well, I see a nexus between bigotry and stupidity (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    WTF? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Spamlet on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    You may be offended by the idea that anal repression (with its attendant projection) accounts for so much of the homophobia directed at gay men, but it's an idea that is very hard to deny after even cursory study of the relevant literature in social psychiatry and queer theory. To call attention to this phenomenon is neither to condone it nor to promote false notions about who does or does not engage in anal sex.

    If you're calling me a bigot, please note that you're applying this label to someone who was organizing chapters of the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activist Alliance and, a decade later, ACT-UP before you (to paraphrase Laurie Anderson) were a Hershey bar in your father's back pocket.


    No, not you (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    I'm saying that the impulse to reduce gay men to people who are defined by the fact that they have anal sex--and the corollary that no one else does--is a kind of bigotry, clearly reflected in the original comment.

    Oh yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Spamlet on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:57:17 PM EST
    I'm saying that the impulse to reduce gay men to people who are defined by the fact that they have anal sex--and the corollary that no one else does--is a kind of bigotry, clearly reflected in the original comment.

    My point as well, but I would go farther than calling it a "kind of" bigotry. It's outight psychosocial pathology--mass mental illness.


    I just got home from the March (none / 0) (#29)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 08:35:36 PM EST
    We all want "Change we can believe in" but no one should believe that 'Hope' is enough to make anything happen.

    Obama did not leave his election to hoping: he went after his goal extremely aggressively. If he went after some of the things he campaigned about as aggressively he would win big. And get re-elected. If he sits on his hands and occasionally gives a nice-sounding speech, he may get re-elected but with little to show for history and the people.

    It is time to hold his feet to the fire. I hope he is starting to feel it.

    Is Barney Frank correct? Will the march (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:22:55 AM EST
    have any effect of what the President does?

    Barney Frank (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:11:56 AM EST
    is correct in that a March does not an effective political movement make.

    I think Frank's message is that the GLTB.... community needs to make the next step in terms of creating a coherent, effective political organization to promote their goals.  Not just a march here or an election there, but a 24/7/365 effort.

    Frank used the NRA as an example of an effective political organization.  It'd be a helluva thing if messing with gay rights was political suicide!


    From the tone of the speakers (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    The left is going to make not listening political suicide. If the HRC is content with cocktail parties and speeches, the base wants action, has decided waiting is not an option.
    The other thing Barney Frank is missing: new generation. And I've been to almost all of the national gay marches - this one had a huge percentage of straight allies. This one was not a big gay party - it was politics. If Fox news was looking bor bare-assed chaps to film they were not there. There were a very few in drag. The crowd was jeans and tshirts and the speeches were serious.

    Why not both? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    I'd also like to see the gay community market the cause in a more positive light. Very few people or families in this country are isolated from the gay community. Either through a relative, a friend or a co-worker, there is a human connection.

    And like every other group in society, most gays are just trying to make their lives the best they can. They are in no way a threat to anyone, let alone the fiber of the nation. (snark)

    As far as civil unions, great! There are a lot of straight couples out there too that, for personal reasons chose to live together rather than "marry". Why not adopt civil unions for all and put marriage back in the church?

    As long as I would qualify for the same federal benefits as the next person, I don't care what they call it.


    Probably yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    But I still think he knifed the community in the back by saying so in such a public way. I mean, WTF was he thinking?

    Kind of reminds me of when Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    and Al Sharpton were not all that supportive of a younger African American male who hadn't earned his stripes in the civil rights mvt. trying to become the Dem. nominee for president.  

    Seems like most did like it (none / 0) (#52)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    ""I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight," Obama declared.

    The president was quick to acknowledge the impatience many gay activists have expressed about his failure to carry through on campaign promises regarding gays in the military and other issues.

    "I also appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has some fast enough. I want to be honest about that," Obama said. "Even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and will not put aside issues of basic equality."

    "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness," Obama said. "I'm working with the Pentagon and its leadership and members of the House and Senate on ending this policy...I will end 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.' That's my commitment to you," he said to a raucous ovation."

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28156.html#ixzz0TjNsvfcK

    Says all the right things (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    and does nothing to prevent any gay soldier from being dismissed from the military today, tomorrow or anytime in the near future. That speech also does not give the community equality today, tomorrow or anytime in the near future.

    I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    he needs to act more quickly to end the DADT mess Clinton created

    He could end (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    soldiers being dismissed from the service with a stroke of the pen today.

    We are going to have find someone (none / 0) (#61)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    other than Hillary to take him on

    "Clinton Says She Will Not Run Again
    For the first time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview that she would not run for president again.

    Clinton said "No" three different times when asked "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"


    Not real sure why you keep on bringing (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    the discussion of Obama's lack of any action on gay rights issues back to the Clintons. Obama is president. Bill or Hillary are not relevant to the subject of whether or not Obama takes action or fulfills his promises.

    Please keep in mind (none / 0) (#64)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    What Clinton tried to do was to end the witch hunts in the military. The compromise policy was Don't Ask, Don't Persue, meaning the military should keep out of our business. It became DADT in practice - it cetainly has been persuing.

    So even the compromise is not what Clinton thought he had agreed to. I can't blame him for this.